Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Smt Pinki Rajpurohit vs Shyam Sunder Rajpurohit … on 10 April, 2026
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2026:RJ-JD:16930]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Transfer Application No. 153/2025
Smt Pinki Rajpurohit W/o Shri Shyam Sunder Rajpurohit, Aged
About 27 Years, D/o Shri Dhansingh Rajpurohit R/o Near Nagana
Temple Village Deriya Tehsil Panchpadra District Barmer
----Petitioner
Versus
Shyam Sunder Rajpurohit S/o Pratap Rajpurohit, R/o Village
Kishnasar Tehsil District Bikaner
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas K. Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dilip Singh Baghela
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
10/04/2026
1. The present transfer petition has been filed with a request
for transferring Case No.268/2021 (Shyam Sunder Vs. Pinki
Rajpurohit) under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1955') pending before
Family Court No.2, Bikaner to Family Court, Balotra.
2. It has been submitted that the petitioner is residing at
Barmer with her father and would face serious hardship if she is
required to travel to Bikaner on each date of hearing. Further, the
criminal proceedings pending qua the FIR as lodged by her are
also pending at Pachpadra/Balotra.
3. It has further been averred that earlier, the respondent
obtained an exparte decree of divorce by manipulating the service
of notice on the petitioner. However, the said decree stood set
(Uploaded on 14/04/2026 at 03:37:21 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/04/2026 at 04:22:57 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16930] (2 of 5) [CTA-153/2025]
aside on application under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC filed by the
petitioner been allowed vide order dated 23.04.2025.
4. Per contra, Counsel for the respondent submits that the
mother of the respondent is suffering with cancer and hence, it is
the respondent who would be suffering comparative hardship in
travelling from Bikaner to Balotra.
5. Heard the counsels. Perused the record.
6. It is a well-settled proposition of law that in matrimonial
matters generally, it is the wife's convenience which must be
looked at while considering the plea of transfer. In N.C.V.
Aishwarya Vs. A.S. Saravana Karthik Sha, (2022 INSC
1310) (decided on 18.07.2022), the Hon'ble Apex Court held as
under:
"9. The cardinal principle for exercise of power under
Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the
ends of justice should demand the transfer of the suit,
appeal or other proceeding. In matrimonial matters,
wherever Courts are called upon to consider the plea
of transfer, the Courts have to take into consideration
the economic soundness of both the parties, the social
strata of the spouses and their behavioural pattern,
their standard of life prior to the marriage and
subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the
parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose
protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance
to life. Given the prevailing socio-economic
paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is
the wife's convenience which must be looked at
while considering transfer."
(Uploaded on 14/04/2026 at 03:37:21 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/04/2026 at 04:22:57 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16930] (3 of 5) [CTA-153/2025]
7. So far as the fact of the respondent's mother suffering from
any disease is concerned, neither any reply to the present petition
has been filed nor any document to substantiate the averment has
been placed on record. Further, perusal of order dated 23.04.2025
passed by Family Court on application under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC
as filed by the petitioner reflects that despite the petitioner
residing with the respondent at her matrimonial house at that
point of time, the petition under Section 13 of the Act of 1955 was
filed and even got decreed ex parte.
8. In that view of the matter, the petition pending at Bikaner
deserves to be transferred to the place where the petitioner is
residing. The same is also essential in view of the fact that she is
an unemployed person financially dependent on her father.
Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap
vs. Shridhar Vishwanath Jagtap, (2016 INSC 504) held as
under:
"3. According to the Appellant, her mother is
aged and it is difficult for her mother to
accompany the Appellant for her travel to
Mumbai. It is also stated that there are three
criminal cases-one for maintenance, the second
under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act,
2005 and the third Under Section 498A of The
Indian Penal Code, 1860 and other related
provisions, pending at Barshi, and one on the
civil side for restitution
....
5. Admittedly, the distance between Mumbai
and Barshi is around 400 kilometres. Four cases
between the parties are pending at Barshi.
Apparently, the comparative hardship is more
(Uploaded on 14/04/2026 at 03:37:21 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/04/2026 at 04:22:57 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16930] (4 of 5) [CTA-153/2025]
to the appellant-wife. This aspect of the matter,
unfortunately, the High Court has missed to
take note of.”
9. In view of the submissions made and in view of the settled
position of law, the present application deserves to be and is
hereby allowed. Civil Misc. Case No.268/2021 (Shyam Sunder Vs.
Pinki Rajpurohit) pending before Family Court No.2, Bikaner is
directed to be transferred to Family Court, Balotra.
10. Needless to observe that if any application is filed by the
respondent-husband with a request to permit him to appear
through Video Conferencing, the learned Court shall be at liberty
to decide the same keeping into consideration the fact whether
the physical appearance of the respondent is essential on the said
date.
11. Family Court No.2, Bikaner is directed to send the complete
file/record of Civil Misc. Case No.268/2021 (Shyam Sunder Vs.
Pinki Rajpurohit) to Family Court, Balotra within a period of two
weeks from the receipt of the certified copy of the present order
while fixing the next date in the matter for appearance before the
Court at Balotra.
12. The petitioner as well as the respondent shall remain present
before Family Court, Balotra on the date as fixed and the Court at
Balotra shall not be under an obligation to issue fresh notices to
any of the parties as the present order is being passed in presence
of Counsel for both the parties.
13. Let a certified copy of the present order be sent forthwith
each to Family Court No.2, Bikaner and Family Court, Balotra.
(Uploaded on 14/04/2026 at 03:37:21 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/04/2026 at 04:22:57 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16930] (5 of 5) [CTA-153/2025]
14. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
204-Arvind/-
(Uploaded on 14/04/2026 at 03:37:21 PM)
(Downloaded on 14/04/2026 at 04:22:57 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
